Re: The Pitchfork News/reviews thread

Fuck Trent for complaining about this, even using the term review in scare-quotes to rile up his cult. First, it's hardly as if they torched him with this review. Second, they've faithfully pimped his post-Fragile career with regular news coverage and generally positive reviews. It's not Pitchfork's fault that he made a mediocre side project album and then stepped all over it himself by announcing the return of NIN.

Re: The Pitchfork News/reviews thread

Maybe Trent figured that they would have assigned it to somebody that wouldnt be as bad in comparison to the Fragile reviewer. He also shouldnt just say anything about the high profile reviews that are coming. Why not just say thanks to everyone who bought the album and leave it be?

Re: The Pitchfork News/reviews thread

Originally Posted by Miroir Noir

Fuck Trent for complaining about this, even using the term review in scare-quotes to rile up his cult. First, it's hardly as if they torched him with this review. Second, they've faithfully pimped his post-Fragile career with regular news coverage and generally positive reviews. It's not Pitchfork's fault that he made a mediocre side project album and then stepped all over it himself by announcing the return of NIN.

He's just mad it wasn't reviewed by Ian Cohen while two other albums with worse scores were today

Re: The Pitchfork News/reviews thread

I enjoy Ian's writing tremendously, but Pitchfork is overextending him. He's writing far too many of their reviews, and far too many of the "big" releases as well, and the result is that their overall editorial viewpoint is more "samey" than it has ever been. They seem oddly understaffed right now.

Re: The Pitchfork News/reviews thread

Originally Posted by Miroir Noir

I enjoy Ian's writing tremendously, but Pitchfork is overextending him. He's writing far too many of their reviews, and far too many of the "big" releases as well, and the result is that their overall editorial viewpoint is more "samey" than it has ever been . They seem oddly understaffed right now.

Re: The Pitchfork News/reviews thread

Best New Music: Explained!
Q: How does Pitchfork's Best New Music system work? I've read reviews where two albums get a score of say 8.2, but one is BNM and the other isn't. --Aurora Nuncio
A: The truth of it is breathtakingly simple: Editors choose Best New Music albums based on the records that we think are the cream of the crop. These are excellent records that we feel transcend their scene and genre. When an album gets Best New Music, we think there's a very good chance that someone who doesn't generally follow this specific sphere of music will find a lot to enjoy in it.

Re: The Pitchfork News/reviews thread

Originally Posted by Miroir Noir

And yeah, for me the Men album was the best thing released this week, but I guess they're thinking that a fourth BNM in one week would be overkill.

yeah true. Its just perplexing because I think the men and nick cave have had the best albums this year, and although they got good scores, they didnt receive the title. but neither did Hot Chip last year and that was on their top 50 while some of the bnm's werent?

Re: The Pitchfork News/reviews thread

Hey now, I like reading P4k reviews and articles as much as the next guy. The writing quality, organization, and professionalism are among the best on the interwebs. Probably the best. But sometimes I think we might be putting a little too much faith in P4k as the official doctrine for modern musical evaluation. As mentioned above, I also think Nick Cave has released one of the best albums so far this year, but P4k's progressive agenda will always outweigh any conservative proclivities that might be implied through a BNM tag. Understandably, though. I mean, they don't want to become the 21st-century Rolling Stone.

Re: The Pitchfork News/reviews thread

Originally Posted by HeavensWeep

Hey now, I like reading P4k reviews and articles as much as the next guy. The writing quality, organization, and professionalism are among the best on the interwebs. Probably the best. But sometimes I think we might be putting a little too much faith in P4k as the official doctrine for modern musical evaluation. As mentioned above, I also think Nick Cave has released one of the best albums so far this year, but P4k's progressive agenda will always outweigh any conservative proclivities that might be implied through a BNM tag. Understandably, though. I mean, they don't want to become the 21st-century Rolling Stone.

Oh I totally agree, if you like something, you should establish your own opinion. I dont just listen to the bnm's I just they overlook some things.

Re: The Pitchfork News/reviews thread

For sure. Not disagreeing with you or anything.
All's I'm saying is that the ratings and "best new whatevers" more so reflect the direction they desire than the actual quality of the music. As is any indie music site in this fragile blogosphere, they're perpetually in danger of sinking below the curve.

Re: The Pitchfork News/reviews thread

I'm pretty anti-Pitchfork overall. It seems like too many people see the scores before listening to an album, thus making it nearly impossible to listen to something for the first time objectively. I do, however, think they break/rank all kinds of different bands and albums that I otherwise might not hear about, so I do like them for that.

Re: The Pitchfork News/reviews thread

Wonderous Bughouse is a fine record that through no fault of its own symbolizes everything that I've grown tired and bored of with contemporary indie. I feel like Beavis watching Pavement on MTV (at the point when Pavement's style of indie rock had officially played itself to death, irrespective of the fact that Wowee Zowee was itself incredible): "oh no, it's another one of these."